Интервью

121

Philip Ewell Филип Юэлл

MUSIC THEORY À LA LENINGRAD: AN INTERVIEW WITH TATIANA BERSHADSKAYA

Моя статья посвящена теоретической школе Ленинградской – Петербургской кон-

серватории и ее создателям, замечательным музыкантам-мыслителям, композиторам, тео-ретикам — Борису Владимировичу Асафьеву, Юрию Николаевичу Тюлину и Христофору

Степановичу Кушнарёву. Казалась бы, эти ученые работали в разных сферах музыковеде-ния: Б. В. Асафьев — общие проблемы музыки; Ю. Н. Тюлин — гармония; Х. С. Кушнарёв —

полифония. Но, тем не менее, их учения оказались внутренне настолько близкими (надеюсь, я смогу это показать), что им удалось слиться в единую школу, которой мы, теоретики сего-

дняшнего дня, придерживаемся и заветам которой следуем.

My article is dedicated to the theoretical school of the Leningrad–St. Petersburg Conserva-tory, and to this theoretical school’s founders, the wonderful musicians, composers, and theorists Boris Asafiev, Yuri Tiulin, and Christopher Kushnarev. It would seem that these scholars worked

in different spheres of musicology: Asafiev on general problems in music; Tiulin on harmony; and Kushnarev on polyphony. Nevertheless, their studies turned out to be inherently so closely related (as I hope to show) that they successfully merged into a single integrated school, which we, today’s

theorists, uphold, and whose legacies we follow1 [7, 9].

So begins Tatiana Bershadskaya’s “Ленинградская–петербургская

школа теории музыки” (The Leningrad–St. Petersburg school of music the-

I would like to thank Daniil Shutko for his help in setting up this interview, Maxim Krivosheyev for transcribing the audio version into Russian, and of course Bershadskaya herself, for her generosity, hospitality, and everything she has done for the field. 1 All translations from Russian into English are mine unless otherwise indicated. I usually leave the Cyrillic version for quotations, terms, and titles, with English transliterations and/or translations added. When I transliterate I use the Library of Congress’s system. However, certain anglicized names—Asafiev, Bershadskaya, and Christopher, or Moscow and St. Petersburg, for example—appear throughout. I usually put the original Russian in the text, in a footnote, or in a column running side by side with my translations. However, in the interest of space, I do not include the original Russian text of the interview itself.

Интервью

122

ory), an article that examines the nature and history of this significant branch

of Russian music theory. An icon of the field, Bershadskaya was born on July

4, 1921 — when Vladimir Lenin ruled the country not yet called the Union of

Soviet Socialist Republics — in Petrograd, a Russified “Petersburg,” the city

that would soon change its name once again, to “Leningrad,” this time in

honor of the communist revolutionary himself2. Her father, Sergei Bershad-

sky (1881–1942), a quite famous conductor and a composer of some repute,

studied composition at the St. Petersburg conservatory with Nikolai Rimsky-

Korsakov — yes, that Rimsky-Korsakov, who died in 19083. The two schools of

music theory, of Moscow and St. Petersburg, are known to any music theorist

inside the former Soviet Union, but virtually unknown to those outside. In a

sense, the “St. Petersburg school” is the only such school in Russia, since it

arose primarily in contradistinction to the overwhelming influence of Moscow

in the twentieth century. In other words, it is more common to hear St. Pe-

tersburg or Leningrad as a qualifier for music theory than it is to hear Mos-

cow: whereas a concept from the former might be a “St. Petersburg music

theory” concept, one from the latter will likely just be a “music theory” con-

cept. They have swum against the Muscovite tide for many decades now in St.

Petersburg, and it seems most everyone has made their peace with the situa-

tion. This did not stop Bershadskaya, however — with whom I sat down for an

interview on February 15, 2018 — from raking Moscow and their music theo-

rists over the coals in our discussion. She was particularly critical of Yuri

2 In September 1991 this city once again, and one hopes for the last time, was renamed, go-ing back to its original name, Saint Petersburg (Санкт Петербург). I use “Leningrad” and “St. Petersburg” interchangeably in this essay/interview. 3 It is hard to judge Bershadsky’s compositions, since in the fall of 1941, at the beginning of the 900-day blockade of Leningrad by the Nazis, a bomb completely wiped out his entire archive, along with a grand piano and an Amati violin. What was more valuable, the Amati or the compositions, we will probably never know.

Интервью

123

Kholopov (1932–2003), Moscow’s (and arguably Russia’s) most famous mu-

sic theorist in the late twentieth century. And now, one could reasonably ar-

gue, Bershadskaya herself is Russia’s most famous living music theorist.

Without question, she is the leading figure of the St. Petersburg school of mu-

sic theory, as she studied with two — Tiulin and Kushnarev — of the three fig-

ures from the opening quotation of my essay.

Before I get to the interview I must contextualize the Moscow-

Leningrad dichotomy and Bershadskaya’s role therein. The lineage of the

Leningrad school can be traced directly to Boleslav Yavorsky (1877–1942) and

his “theory of modal rhythm”4. This is ironic insofar as Yavorsky had very lit-

tle to do with Russia’s “northern capital,” as St. Petersburg is sometimes

called—he spent most of his career in Ukraine or in and around Moscow. But

Yavorsky and his theories, on which Asafiev drew extensively, did not develop

in a vacuum. Rather, they arose in significant part as a counterbalance to the

encroaching harmonic functionalism of Hugo Riemann (1849–1919) in Russia

in the early to mid-twentieth century.

Rimsky-Korsakov, with his Учебник гармонии (Harmony textbook,

1885: [22]), is sometimes cited as one of the originators of harmonic func-

tionalism in Russia5. For instance, Rimsky-Korsakov explained: “The main

triads of the major and minor mode—the tonic, on the first scale degree, the

subdominant, on the fourth scale degree and the dominant, on the fifth scale 4 For more on Yavorsky’s life and work in English, see: [36, 450–509 and 718–795]; [38, 2.1–2.16]; [40, 76–86]; or [41, 109–164]. For the same in Russian see: [1]; [32, 375–94]; or [34] and [33]. 5 In a 1950 review of a new edition of Rimsky-Korsakov’s textbook, one post-WWII Soviet author, Joseph Ryzhkin, went so far as to claim that it was a mistake to credit Riemann, a German, for functionalism and that Rimsky should be given credit for doing so [23, 108]. This view was ultimately understood as revisionist, and Riemann is generally given the same credit in Russia as elsewhere for his role in the history of harmonic functionalism. However, Bershadskaya, in our discussion, overstated Riemann’s role in Rimsky’s work—see the interview below.

Интервью

124

degree—are the main basis of any harmonization, since in any tonality con-

sisting of these three triads all notes of the scale are present”6 [22, 15].

A discussion of the beginnings of harmonic functionalism in Russia is

beyond the scope of my work here, but a few points are worth making. Rie-

mann was certainly the first to use the term “function,” which he borrowed

from mathematics, and his Vereinfachte Harmonielehre oder die Lehre von

den tonalen Funktionen der Akkorde, from 1893, is far more important in the

history of function theory than Rimsky-Korsakov’s harmony text. Still, Rim-

sky-Korsakov’s formulation, from eight years before Riemann’s Vereinfachte,

is an important part of that history. Rimsky-Korsakov viewed the three triads

not simply as three chords with tonic, subdominant, and dominant roots, but

as representatives of families of chords that could fulfill one of the three func-

tions, and he clearly spelled out these three families and called them

“groups”: тоническая группа (tonic group), субдоминантовая группа

(subdominant group), and доминантовая группа (dominant group)

[21, 66]. Finally, in his textbook, he immediately focused on the harmoniza-

tion of melodies using I–IV–V–I progressions, also a trademark of harmonic

functionalism.

The first true proponent of Riemannian theory in Russia was Grigori

Catoire (1861–1926) who, at the suggestion of Tchaikovsky, went to Berlin in

1885 to study piano and composition, ultimately with Otto Tiersch and

Philipp Rüfer. After Catoire’s return to Russia in 1887 he studied with Rim-

sky-Korsakov, among others, so it was only natural that he combine his expe-

6 «Главные трезвучия мажорного и минорного лада: тоническое — I ступени, субдо-минантовое — IV ступени и доминантовое — V ступени – суть главная основа всякой гармонизации, так как в тонах, составляющих эти три трезвучия, заключаются все ступени гаммы».

Интервью

125

rience in Germany with his studies under Rimsky-Korsakov.7 About Catoire’s

Теоретический курс гармонии (Theoretical course of harmony) (1924–

1925), Ellon Carpenter writes: “The introduction to the theory of functional

harmony in Catoire’s textbook was unique among Russian textbooks of this

time. Although Catoire invented neither the idea nor the method of its

presentation, his adaptation of the principles of Riemann’s theories… became

a permanent part of the Soviet theory of harmony” [36, 603].

Early in Catoire’s textbook, which he used for his classes at the Mos-

cow Conservatory, he lays out the tripartite system for chords in a diatonic

system.8 Catoire’s was the first Russian text to clearly label that tripartite sys-

tem as “T,” “S,” and “D,” using German letters (which do not exist in Cyrillic

obviously — Rimsky-Korsakov’s textbook uses only roman numerals for the

three functions). Significantly, Catoire had several students at the Moscow

Conservatory who would go on to write the most important and enduring

harmony textbook in Soviet Russia, the Учебник гармонии (Harmony text-

book), usually called the Бригадный учебник (“Brigade” textbook). Its au-

thors — Joseph Dubovsky (1892–1969), Sergei Evseev (1894–1956), Vladimir

Sokolov (1897–1950), and Igor Sposobin (1900–1954) — who all studied with

Catoire, essentially created the Moscow school of music theory with this book.

Believe it or not, it is still the harmony textbook (in a revised and updated

form of course) widely used in the Russian Federation today. It was first pub-

lished in two volumes in 1934 and 1936 as Практический курс гармонии (A

practical course of harmony), but the second edition [14], the Учебник гар-

монии, is what remained. It is currently in its fifth edition, published in 2016.

7 Significantly, Catoire was also influenced by the Belgian François-Auguste Gevaert and his Traité d’harmonie theorique et practique, from 1905–1907. 8 See, specifically, chapter 2, Образование аккордов диатонической системой (The formation of chords in a diatonic system) [15, 14–34].

Интервью

126

Yuri Kholopov, the clear leader of the Moscow school until his death in 2003,

studied from the brigade textbook with Igor Sposobin at the Moscow Con-

servatory. In many ways one could draw a direct line from that textbook to

Kholopov’s magnum opus, his treatise on harmony, Гармония: теоретиче-

ский курс (Harmony: A theoretical course) [31]), which is probably the finest

exemplar of the Moscow school of music theory to this day9. A final point

about the Moscow school: I began my discussion with Rimsky-Korsakov, who

was a Petersburger through and through. In other words, all music theory in

Russia can be traced back to St. Petersburg, and not to Moscow, since the

former is where all significant nineteenth-century advances took place.

The Leningrad school is, in many ways, more interesting than the Mos-

cow school, insofar as it is more extraordinary. Do they acknowledge func-

tional theory there? Of course, in large part through Tiulin’s works. He, for

one, was a proponent of Riemann, but Tiulin worked within the confines of

the Leningrad school, which began, as I said, with Yavorsky. It is hard to put

into words Yavorsky’s influence on music theory in Russia. His ideas — many

of which survive to this day—were studied in conservatories across the coun-

try. Those who studied with Yavorsky or were otherwise directly influenced

by him include Arnold Al’shchvang, Boris Asafiev, Leah Averbukh, Ber-

shadskaya, Nadezhda Briusova, Lev Mazel’, Dmitri Melkikh, Sergei Prokofiev,

Sergei Protopopov, Isaac Rabinovich, Yuri Tiulin, and Victor Tsukkerman, for

example. Yavorsky also held tremendous sway over the young Dmitri Shosta-

kovich, whom he met in Moscow in March 1925, when the composer was just

19, at Shostakovich’s first concert of his own works. It was this meeting that

drew Shostakovich to Yavorsky and, importantly, to Moscow. They remained 9 Though Kholopov calls it a textbook (учебник) in the Preface [31, 3], the book is really a treatise (трактат). His Гармония: практический курс (Harmony: A practical course) [30] is much more a textbook than the former.

Интервью

127

close until Yavorsky’s death in 1942. Bobykina’s Дмитрий Шостакович: в

письмах и документах (Dmitri Shostakovich: In letters and documents), for

example, contains sixty-six letters from Shostakovich to Yavorsky [13, 9–132).

The connection between Yavorsky and Shostakovich, and any potential influ-

ence that Yavorsky’s theories had on Shostakovich’s composition style, is a

topic ripe for exploration.

With respect to Yavorsky’s overall impact, writing in 1927, noted musi-

cologist Leonid Sabaneev said: “Whether for good or for evil, all musical Rus-

sia at present is divided into “Yavorians” and “Old-Believers,” with the former

inclining towards aggressive action along the whole musical front. Though

still insufficiently verified, the new theory [the “theory of modal rhythm”] is

being introduced into institutions of music learning, its half-mystical, half-

cabalistic propositions taking the place of the simple recipes of old naïve theo-

ry which possessed the advantage of not requiring obedience” [42, 210].

To a significant extent, the “Old-Believers” came to represent the Mos-

cow school, and the “Yavorians” the Leningrad10. Yavorsky significantly en-

larged the Russian musical lexicon by coining musical terms: тяготение

(“gravitation”), сопряжение (“conjunction”), предыкт (“retransition”), and

переменный and увеличенный (“mutable” and “augmented”) modes, for ex-

ample. Yavorsky also introduced интонация (“intonatsiia” or, translated,

“intonation”), a term Boris Asafiev would essentially stake his reputation on

in his two-volume Музыкальная форма как процесс (Musical form as pro-

cess), the second volume of which bears the title Интонация [2]11.

10 “Old-Believers” (старообрядцы) are Eastern Orthodox Christians who do not adhere to certain mid-seventeenth-century liturgical reforms, so there is a bit of irony in Sabaneev’s comments here. 11 For an English translation of Музыкальная форма как процесс see Tull 1977.

Интервью

128

Yavorsky made a big impression on Asafiev (1884–1949), the so-called

“father of Soviet musicology”, when they met. On May 3, 1915, Asafiev wrote

to Vladimir Derzhanovsky:

Сегодня познакомился с Яворским: это буквально неисчерпаемо интересный человек. Его слушать — одна радость... В его методе я об-рел то, что так давно искал, — прочный научный фундамент теории музыки, ибо до сих пор я совершенно не удовлетворялся тем, что мне подносили в консерватории и учебниках, а сам не в силах был создать единую основу.

Today I met Yavorsky: this is literally an inexhaustibly interesting

person. To listen to him is pure joy… In his method I have found that which I have long sought—a substantial scientific foundation for music theory, because I have been completely unsatisfied with that which the conservatory and textbooks have given me, nor do I myself have the strength to create a uniform basis for such a theory [34, 296–297].

Asafiev would go on to be, arguably, the most important Soviet musi-

cologist in the twentieth century and, as Bershadskaya states, the founder of

the Leningrad school of music theory12. Asafiev was clearly inspired by Ya-

vorsky, while at the same time he took a hard line against the intruding har-

monic functionalism represented by Riemann and his proponents in Russia:

Из теоретиков глубокий анализ “тритонности” и раскрытие зна-чения этой интонационной сферы в современной музыке дал русский музыкант-мыслитель Б.Л. Яворский.

Наоборот, рабски подчинившая себе умы многих теоретиков римановская система «функциональной гармонии» закрепощает слух и сознание композиторов своей консервативной механической «предустановленностью». Эта система является печальным наследи-ем так называемого «генерал-баса», цифрованного баса, т.е. учения о гармонии, рождавшегося из практики органного и клавирного сопро-вождения, своего рода аккомпаниаторства.

12 As the reader is probably aware, a music theorist in Russia is, first and foremost, a musi-cologist (музыковед), as is the case in most European countries, which is to say that theo-ry is a subfield of musicology in Russia.

Интервью

129

Among theorists it was the Russian musician-thinker Boleslav Ya-vorsky who undertook a deep analysis of “tritonality” and discovered the meaning of its intonational purview in contemporary music.

On the other hand, Riemann’s system of “functional harmony,” which has slavishly subordinated the minds of many theorists, subjugates the composer’s hearing and consciousness with its conservative, mechanical “predetermination.” This system is the sad legacy of the so-called “general bass,” figured bass, i.e., the teaching of harmony born of the practice of or-gan and piano accompaniment, some kind of “accompaniment school.” [2, 243–244].

This quotation reveals the genesis of the Leningrad school of music

theory. Asafiev goes on to further rebuke Riemann and his denial of the

“physiological” and “intonational” aspect of music (245–246). As is well

known, Asafiev continued Yavorsky’s legacy of “intonatsiia,” which moved

away from a scientific acoustical view of music to one based on the human ex-

perience, music psychology and cognition, and musical emotions13. Intonatsi-

ia is extremely difficult to define—you can read Bershadskaya’s definition be-

low when I asked her—so I will not get into its intricacies, which I myself only

half understand. There is even a famous joke in Russia about Asafiev and in-

tonatsiia worth recounting: Two musicologists were talking at Asafiev’s funer-

al. One says to the other, “it’s a shame about Boris Vladimirovich,” to which

the other replies, “yes…it’s also a shame he never explained what he meant by

‘intonatsiia’”!

This is worth recounting because, as Yuri Kholopov once told me, the

joke was invented by Igor Sposobin. So already in the early 1950s — Sposobin

died in 1954 — the Moscow school was ribbing the Leningrad school. Never-

theless, with Asafiev’s work a new music theory was born, one that was

uniquely Soviet and, in an abstract sense at least, uniquely Russian.

13 Sergei Protopopov’s Элементы строения музыкальной речи (Elements of the struc-ture of musical speech), which he cowrote with Yavorsky, features an entire chapter on интонация [20, 117–155], which is likely where Asafiev drew inspiration for the second volume of Музыкальная форма как процесс, published fourteen years thereafter.

Интервью

130

This brings up a final point about the Leningrad school’s origins: it can

also be linked to pressure on musicologists from the Soviet government to

create a Marxist musical science devoid of Germanic underpinnings. On Feb-

ruary 5, 1930, Soviet People’s Commissar Anatoly Lunacharsky convened a

conference on Yavorsky’s Theory of Modal Rhythm. It was as if modal rhythm

was put on trial by the Soviet government. The write-up in Пролетарский

музыкант (Proletarian musician) states the aim of the conference clearly:

Главным вопросом, занявшим внимание конференции по тео-рии ладового ритма в течение почти трех дней, был вопрос о том, насколько эта теория в основных своих предпосылках соответствует принципам диалектического материализма и может ли она явиться исходным моментом для марксистской науки о музыке.

The main question of the conference on the theory of modal rhythm,

which took place over the course of almost three days, was to what extent this theory, within its fundamental premises, corresponds to the principles of dialectical materialism and whether it can be a starting point for a Marxist musical science. [16, 6].

So this was a serious matter indeed. Yavorsky opened and closed the

conference, giving speeches of three to four hours each. Many — former stu-

dents for instance, such as Al’shchvang, Averbukh, Briusova, Protopopov,

Rabinovich, and Tsukkerman — spoke in favor of Yavorsky’s theory. However,

Nikolai Garbuzov attacked modal rhythm on an acoustical basis, and Mikhail

Ivanov-Boretsky attacked it on a historical basis, stating that there was noth-

ing new about tritone resolution (which was at the basis of the theory).

Ivanov-Boretsky then linked Yavorsky’s theory to “impressionism” and, with

it, “bourgeois” ideals, which were of course antithetical to Marxism [16, 7].

Ultimately, Lunacharsky, who seems to have been a lifelong friend to Ya-

vorsky, weighed in on Yavorsky’s side:

Я не решился бы сказать, что теория ладового ритма есть марк-систская теория в музыке, но я твердо убежден, что это есть теория, наиболее родственная марксизму и, вероятно, развитие марксистско-

Интервью

131

го музыковедения будет итти [sic] именно по линии дальнейшего развития теории ладового ритма и дальнейшего проникновения ее началами диалектического материализма.

Though I would not call the theory of modal rhythm a Marxist theory

of music, I am firmly convinced that it is the theory most closely related to Marxism. Likely, the development of Marxist musicology will move pre-cisely along the lines of the further development of the theory of modal rhythm and the further adoption of dialectical materialism to its principles. [19, 13].

To be blunt, Yavorsky was a Slav — read here, not German — which

likely made it easier to promote his novel ideas. As with all things Soviet,

however, the pendulum soon swung to the other side and Yavorsky, by the

mid 1930s, was out of favor. This did not stop others, primarily Asafiev, from

taking up Yavorsky’s mantle and forming new related ideas.

Bershadskaya’s two teachers, Kushnarev (1890–1960) and Tiulin

(1893–1978), are an important link between Asafiev and the present-day Len-

ingrad school. The former, whose large portrait hangs in Bershadskaya’s liv-

ing room, did not publish much, but what little he did publish addressed two

topics: polyphony and Armenian monody (see Kushnarev 1971 and 1958, re-

spectively). Bershadskaya often refers to “monody” in her writings, as she did

in our discussion, which is a direct result of her studies with Kushnarev. Tiu-

lin was far more prolific than Kushnarev and had a larger impact on the

course of Soviet music theory. I have listed his main books in my bibliog-

raphy, which I encourage the reader to examine. His career began with his

Учение о гармонии (Study of harmony) [27]. Late in life he wrote a fascinat-

ing book called Строение музыкальной речи (The structure of musical

speech) — the same title as Yavorsky’s 1908 monograph [35] — which gives

Tiulin’s unique views on musical form, among other things. His Учебник

гармонии (Harmony textbook), which he cowrote with Nikolai Privano [29],

Интервью

132

represents Leningrad’s answer to the much more famous Muscovite brigade

textbook. Tiulin and Privano’s textbook has a Riemannian angle — T, D, and S,

are used prominently early on—but it is much more muted when compared to

the brigade textbook. Strikingly, Tiulin and Privano’s harmonic analyses of

excerpts are done entirely with roman numerals and not with the three Rie-

mannian descriptors as they are in the brigade textbook, which shows the au-

thors’ penchant for Stufentheorie over Funktionstheorie14. Tiulin’s ultimate

achievement was to bring the Leningrad school into the mainstream so that

they could continue the traditions of Yavorsky and Asafiev.

Bershadskaya continues this tradition to the present day. In her article

on the Leningrad school she goes into detail about the underpinnings of

“western” theory, and suggests that this is in line with the Moscow school to a

large extent. She often mentions the “acoustical” basis for this line of think-

ing, and how the “human” element is left out. Though she mentions only Hin-

demith by name (in passing) in this part of the article, one thinks immediately

of Heinrich Helmholtz, Heinrich Hertz, and Riemann as well. In short, west-

ern theory, and the Moscow school with it, has “ignored” the “psychological”

and “human” element of sound and music. The following quotation sums up

her beliefs about how the Leningrad school differs:

Наша школа исходит из принципиально других позиций. Пер-вая позиция – музыка и человек, музыка и человеческое мышление, музыка и человеческий интеллект, его психология, законы восприя-тия. И своей задачей наша теория ставит не установление связей с акустикой, что, в общем, очевидно и не нуждается в подтверждениях, а раскрытие тайны того, как акустические явления, то есть явления материальной природы, становятся искусством, становятся средством выражения душевных переживаний человека, становятся музыкой. В этом мне видится принципиальное отличие нашей российской (и я бы сказала, прежде всего, ленинградской) концепции, сохраняющей свое значение до сих пор.

14 Notably, there is no Schenkerian slant whatsoever in either textbook.

Интервью

133

Our school comes from principally different positions [from those in the West]. The first position is that of music and the human being, music and human thought, music and human intellect, its psychology, the laws of perception. And the goal of our theory is not to establish connections with acoustics, which generally is clear and not in need of confirmation but, ra-ther, to discover the secret of how acoustical phenomena — that is, phe-nomena of the material world—become art, become a means of expressing the internal experiences of the human being, become music. Herein lies the principal distinction of our Russian (and, I would say, first and fore-most, Leningrad) conception, which has preserved its significance to this day [7, 10]; [italics original].

I have included Bershadskaya’s main books in my bibliography. Her

non-pedagogical output spans from Основные композиционные

закономерности многоголосия русской народной крестьянской песни

(Fundamental compositional rules in multi-voiced Russian folk-peasant

songs) [9], a rewrite of her 1954 dissertation, to В ладах с гармонией, в

гармонии с ладами: очерки (In modes with harmony, in harmony with

modes: Essays) [3]. Her main theoretical work, however, is Лекции по

гармонии (Lectures on harmony, [6]). In the same fashion that one could

draw a direct line between the brigade textbook and Kholopov’s Гармония,

one could draw that same line from Tiulin’s Учение to her Лекции. Among

many awards, her most famous is that of “Distinguished Artist of the Russian

Federation.” She is currently working on a book on musical methodology for

music school teachers.

In the interview that follows I worked chronologically, roughly, using

the first 45 minutes to ask historical questions, largely outside of music, and

the second 45 minutes to focus on music and music theory. Her stories of life

in the early Soviet Union, and of living through the 900-day Nazi blockade of

Leningrad during WWII, are at once fascinating and chilling. Her apartment,

in which we met, is something of a Soviet time capsule — she has lived there

since 1924 — with memorabilia from many decades of life and music making.

Интервью

134

In this introductory essay I have likely raised as many questions as I

have answered. A logical next step would be to examine the issues in more

depth. For instance, what is the history of harmonic functionalism in Russia?

What are the similarities and differences among the four key harmony texts—

by the brigade, Kholopov, Tiulin, and Bershadskaya — which I cited above?

What are some specific examples of concepts, not just “intonatsiia” but others

as well, from the Leningrad school, and how does one use them in musical

analysis? How does intonatsiia differ from voice leading (a topic we discussed

in the interview)? And to what extent did Soviet pressure shape music theory

in the twentieth century? Another fascinating theme, which I have not yet

mentioned directly, would be the role that women played in the history of

Russian music theory. If Bershadskaya is not currently the most famous mu-

sic theorist in Russia, then that honor would likely fall to Yuri Kholopov’s sis-

ter, Valentina Kholopova, who is 83. But the topic of women music theorists

in Russia begins long before these two figures. For example, Leah Averbukh,

Nadezhda Briusova, Ekaterina Maltseva, Sofia Beliaeva-Eksempliarskaiia,

Maria Medvedeva, and Anna Charnova were all active in the late-nineteenth

and early-twentieth centuries and made important contributions to music

theory. Beliaeva-Eksempliarskaiia coauthored, with Yavorsky, a fascinating

monograph on music cognition, Восприятие ладовых мелодических по-

строений (The perception of modal melodic structures), in 1926. Charnova

actually went to Germany to study with Riemann, and published two articles

on him and his theories, in 1897 and 1898, after her return to Russia

[36, 358n5]. And currently, there are more women than men in music theory

in Russia [37]. My essay is just an introduction to all of these issues, in which

Bershadskaya has played a central role for the better part of a century. Here is

the interview, condensed and edited for content, which I translated from the

Интервью

135

original Russian. Occasionally I add Russian words (in italics) or other edito-

rial commentary (in roman type) in square brackets, or footnotes, for clarity’s

sake.

INTERVIEW WITH TATIANA BERSHADSKAYA

P. E: 1. I read that your father studied with Rimsky-Korsakov

at the conservatory. What did he say about his studies with him?

T. B: I only recently realized why he spoke so little with me about the

conservatory. I remembered one phrase he said which, at the time, didn’t re-

ally register. In the old building of the conservatory, as you entered, there

were two large marble memorial plaques on which they etched the names of

famous graduates. The list began with Tchaikovsky. In 1908, the year of Rim-

sky-Korsakov’s death, they etched Maximilian Steinberg. And suddenly my

dad said to me, “do you know that I was to have been on that plaque?” But it

was the year of Rimsky-Korsakov’s death, and in place of my father they

etched Steinberg’s name, since he was Rimsky-Korsakov’s son-in-law. You

know, I just remembered this phrase by chance and it suddenly all made

sense to me. It seems he had some kind of bitterness or resentment.

2. So he didn’t say much about those times?

Yes, he didn’t say much about his conservatory days.

3.That’s too bad, since he surely knew Stravinsky, who also

studied with Rimsky-Korsakov at the same time.

We never discussed Stravinsky at all for some reason. My dad was

more from the classical school.

Интервью

136

4. When we met last November you said that you were a

“non-partisan” [беспартийный] Bolshevik. What did you mean

by that?

I’m happy to answer that, but I’d like to say a couple more things about

my dad. He finished the conservatory not only as a composer, but also as a

violinist, violist, and conductor. Practically speaking, he worked principally as

a conductor, and his work as a composer was manifested more in orchestra-

tion and arranging. After I was born he no longer really wrote music.

5. Where did he work?

The last place he worked was the Regional Operetta of Leningrad. He

was therefore always on business trips. We rarely saw him at home.

6. Which compositions did he like to conduct?

All operettas really. He had no symphonic practice or experience, so he

didn’t know the symphonic literature. He orchestrated a lot. He often con-

ducted Nikolai Strelnikov’s operettas. And I think, to this day, they are per-

formed in his orchestrations. This was his work.

7. And now about you being a non-partisan Bolshevik.

This was a label for people who, with all their heart, were supportive of

the direction of our country and government, but who did not join the com-

munist party.

Интервью

137

8. You were never a member of the communist party?

Not only was I never a member of the party, I was not a Pioneer, which

was strange for my age15. I was not a Komsomol16. Why was this so? The thing

is, my family, in which I grew up and held so dear to my heart, was a family of

“low-level dissidents,” as one might say now.

9. You have some noble bloodlines I’ve read.

My grandfather had a noble estate himself, but this is not an old blood-

line. But my family members were all monarchists. My grandmother suffered

the 1917 revolution with unbelievably great pain. She kept a portrait of the

Tsarevich for a long time, until 1937, when it became dangerous to have such

things. She needed to get rid of it then. It was such an internal rejection for

my family, what was going on in the country, but it became customary. And

my mother was very religious. All my family was religious except for my father,

who said about himself, “I’m a militant atheist.” And he said that his initials, S.

V. B., stood for the “Union of militant atheists.” But he never objected to reli-

gion at home. I’ve had religious icons hanging in my home ever since. And

you know, this is what has sustained me. I was also raised in the Christian

faith and I’m still devoted to it. And therefore they didn’t allow me to become

a Pioneer, nor did I want to.

10. You mentioned 1937. Were you living in this apartment?

I’ve lived my whole life in this apartment, since I was three.

15 The “Vladimir Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization,” which existed from 1922 to 1991, was something of a mandatory boy/girl scout organization meant to indoctrinate children with communist ideals. 16 The “All-Union Leninist Young Communist League,” or the “Komsomol,” was the next step in the communist indoctrination of youth, for teenagers.

Интервью

138

11. They say the Great Terror was truly horrible17.

It was horrible. My mom always worked. By education she was a

French language teacher but, because she had problems with her legs, she

couldn’t work as a teacher and, instead, worked her whole life as a bookkeep-

er. As such, she rose through the ranks and ultimately was the senior ac-

countant at some state bank. I don’t remember which one exactly—I was still

young—but she was working there. And on a form that she filled out…we all

had to fill out very detailed forms all the time, answering “who’s your father”

and “who’s your mother.” All relatives. And my mother wrote that her father

was a private nobleman [личный дворянин]. This was my grandfather. He

inherited a private noble estate, and my mother wrote this on a form.

12. And this was dangerous?

It became dangerous. Our building superintendent — who was attract-

ed to my mom… she was very beautiful and generally wonderful — said to her,

“you know, Nina Grigorevna, I shouldn’t tell you this, but they’re coming soon

to search your house.”

13. My God!

This is how we lived. We burned a lot of stuff. Not only the portrait of

the Tsarevich, but many books that were forbidden at that time. I remember

burning a book of poetry by Igor Severyanin. In short, we burned and burned

and burned. The search of our apartment never came, but my mother was

fired from all jobs, in particular, as a bookkeeper. And she couldn’t get hired

17 The “Great Terror” [Большой террор] was a period of communist party purges in Sta-linist Russia from 1936 to 1938. It is estimated that roughly 500,000 people died at the hands of Stalin’s government.

Интервью

139

anywhere. And then my mom — she was a very decisive woman and generally

fabulous — wrote a long letter to Mikhail Kalinin18.

14. And he responded?

Yes, can you imagine, he responded. And they gave her her job back. I

myself went with her to Smolny for the answer. I wasn’t able to go with her in

the building, and I waited a long time for her outside, but they gave her Kali-

nin’s answer with the demand that she be reinstated to all of her jobs. So

things like this also happened. This was 1937.

15. You said that your mother was religious and your father

an atheist. I’ve read that Rimsky-Korsakov was also an atheist.

Perhaps your father learned that from Rimsky?

Possibly, but I’m not sure that Rimsky-Korsakov was really an atheist.

He was, so to speak, a pagan. Or he was more clearly a pantheist. Neverthe-

less, my mom and dad got married in a church despite the fact that he was a

non-believer. And for a long time I had their wedding candle sticks, and her

bridal veil, and some Brusselian lacework, which I was able to exchange for

butter in 1943.

16. In one of your previous interviews I read how you said, “I

lived a double life, hiding my sympathies for the Pioneers at home

and, at school, the fact that I would attend services at St. Nicholas

Cathedral.”

Absolutely true, a double life. 18 Kalinin was the head of state for the Russian Republic of the Soviet Union, and a mem-ber of the Soviet Politburo. The Russian city Kaliningrad, formerly Königsberg, is named after him.

Интервью

140

17. How long did that last?

Psychologically it was very difficult. It lasted until the war. Because

during the war my entire family died. St. Nicholas Cathedral never left my life,

strictly speaking, and it would still be in my life were I able to get there now.

Back then, such activity was severely persecuted. Pavel Serebriakov, the rector

of the conservatory at that time, was very strict in monitoring his staff, mak-

ing sure that no one was religious. For a long time I had to hide such things at

work. But you know, religion is such an intimate thing that it never really in-

fluenced my work or my social life. Psychologically, especially during my

school years, it was difficult for me. But still, one thing did not affect the other.

It was simply another side of my life, which did not affect work or anything

else. But in my heart of hearts I always identified with my country, my Soviet

Union. I painfully lived through its demise and I still can’t completely come to

terms with the fact that it’s gone. I simply want to add that this phrase, “non-

partisan Bolshevik,” at that time was a certain social status — there were such

people who were outside of the communist party.

18. Were you invited to become a member of the party?

Endlessly. I remember one discussion with the secretary of our party

organization, Iudovin, who said, “Tatiana Sergeevna, please join the party. We

so need decent people like you.”

19. And how did you answer?

I said that I’m not worthy. That was always my answer.

20. That was a very wise answer. About the blockade. My

mother was Norwegian, and she lived through the Nazi occupation

Интервью

141

of Norway. I remember one interesting story my mom liked to tell

about how, once, someone gave her and her friend a rutabaga. And

they fried it in fish oil, and it was one of the best meals of her life.

I understand her like no one else can.

21. And so my question. Do you have any stories of a similar

meal during the 900-day blockade of Leningrad by the Nazis?

You know, I don’t remember that the word “meal” even existed for us,

as such. There was simply no such thing as a meal. But not for all 900 days.

There were different days. The most horrific from the point of view of starva-

tion, unthinkable starvation, that was the winter of 1941–1942, because in

1943 there began to appear certain products, and I began working at the kin-

dergarten and there the concept “meal” existed. There they had kasha, with

no meat. This was 1943. It was a bit better.

22. You must have thought about death during the blockade?

I didn’t think about death. You know, all my family, except my old aunt,

died. But I myself… it was some kind of internal conviction, but I felt that I

would survive. I don’t know what to call it, but I saw for myself a post-war life.

It was always on the horizon. And I think that it was like this not only for me.

But for my mom it was different. From the very beginning she said, “we’re all

going to die.” This was at the very beginning of the war, before there was even

starvation. But I didn’t share this feeling. I don’t know, I just didn’t think

about it. When you ask me about it now I can tell you that I always had a

sense of what will be after the war. Yet I saw death all around me. I still see

visions of a headless body at the corner of Voznesensky Prospect and Isaaki-

evsky Square. I was coming home from the conservatory and the bombard-

Интервью

142

ment started. It was artillery fire and I hid. And as I emerged onto Voznesen-

sky and began to turn to Isaakievsky Square, right there at the Mariinsky Pal-

ace a person without a head was lying there. I still see that image. Then on

Maksimilianovsky Alley, near the gates that lead to Maksimilianovsky hospi-

tal, the corpses of a man and boy were lying there, for about two weeks. I saw

them on my way to the conservatory. They had frozen. It was 40 degrees be-

low zero Celsius. I didn’t go to the conservatory every day, because of person-

nel mobilization rules on our team. But every time I did go for about two

weeks those corpses were still there.

23. Were there any Germans in the city limits?

No, none.

24. I understand that the blockade was around the city.

Around the city, not that close. Around Pulkovo, near the airport. They

would fire artillery from Pulkovo. November 6, 1941, I remember like today. I

was on duty at the conservatory on the anti-aircraft defense team. They didn’t

allow us to go home, so we lived there for a while. They let us go out once eve-

ry several days to wash up, when the water was still running, which soon end-

ed. And then we returned and were on duty 24 hours a day. I remember No-

vember 6 because November 7 is Victory Day of the November communist

revolution. There’s a famous parade, which they still show on television. And

on the eve of November 6 we were building barricades near the Gorky House

of Culture. This is near the Narvsky Gates, downtown. And right over us, I

remember it just like now, shells from the German artillery started flying,

from Pulkovo to Vasilevsky Island. Then we arrived at the conservatory, and I

was on duty in the rector’s office. That’s where I slept. And I remember the

Интервью

143

solemn meeting of the Politburo on November 6, which they broadcast on the

radio since there were not yet any televisions. Levinthan told us of how the

Germans had been stopped in Moscow. This was the first time that they had

been stopped. The next morning was the parade.

25. In Norway it was horrible for my mom, but for the Ger-

mans and Hitler, Scandinavians were closely related, so Norwe-

gians were not treated so awfully. Not so with Slavs. What the

Germans did here was atrocious. What can you say about how you

view the German people, then and now?

It’s a completely distinct treatment between the concept “German” as a

nationality and “German” as an enemy, a fascist. I love German culture, music,

and literature, as I always have. I grew up on Beethoven and Schubert. Here’s

my portrait of Beethoven [she points to the portrait on the wall], my most fa-

vorite composer. Musorgsky is right next to him. But I love Beethoven more

than Musorgsky, for sure.

26. Well he wrote quite a bit more music.

True. But at any rate, I’m absolutely not a nationalist. I have no fascist

underpinnings one way or the other. And therefore for me the concepts “ene-

my” and “German,” even if we are speaking of “Germans,” it was always just a

word, not an essence. We always had many German friends. I grew up sur-

rounded by German families. I began my education at a private German

school. This school was founded by the Wissendorfs. My family was quite

afraid of Soviet influence. After all, this was the 1920s. It was all new, and

they were scared of the Soviets. Therefore when my cousin, who also grew up

in this apartment, and I turned seven, they didn’t put us in Soviet schools but,

Интервью

144

rather, a private German school. My grandmother and I would travel to Va-

silevsky Island to this school. It’s not close. We would walk right over the Ne-

va river in winter when it was frozen. The Wissendorfs lived in a very famous

German house, near St. Catherine’s Cathedral if I’m not mistaken, at the cor-

ner of the First Line and Grand Prospect. Their private school, which was in a

different building, was closed down, so they opened up the new German

school in their big apartment. We studied in that German school two years,

and then they closed it. And then we had to go to a different school, this time

Soviet. I loved my Soviet school with all my heart and I still love it to this day.

I wouldn’t have traded it for the world. I think we got an outstanding educa-

tion. We had wonderful teachers.

27. I remember telling you that my father was a communist.

Wonderful!

28. He, like you, suffered when the Soviet Union ended.

Yes, I suffered, and still suffer.

29. For my dad it was a real catastrophe, but I’m not so in-

terested in asking you what was good about communism, since I

knew that from my father. I would like to ask you…

What was bad?

30. Yes, think about that. Of course you know what people

say generally, but in your opinion, what was bad about com-

munism?

Интервью

145

In terms of what was bad I would say, as I now understand it, there

was some manifestation of historical laws. You see, communist ideas, these

are the same as those from evangelical Christianity. And as with any such ide-

as they are beautiful as ideas, but as soon as real people begin to realize them

in practice, then those same people, as earthly beings, begin to ruin those ide-

as. In my consideration, the impossibility to put into action these ideas as

they were meant to be—ideal—doomed the system to failure. Because not all

people, especially those striving for advancement, were capable of preserving

the realization of these ideas in life. This is my conviction. So it’s not so much

that there was something bad, but that’s how it all appeared. Also, there was a

certain inflexibility in the realization of ideas, a demand for like-mindedness

[единомыслие] in some sense. This was bad about communism, of course.

And in essence? In my opinion there was nothing bad about communism.

31. Let’s return to music and the Leningrad school of music

theory. Asafiev, Tiulin, Kushnarev — your teachers. Let’s start

with Moscow in opposition to Leningrad. What exactly is the

“Moscow school” of music theory in your opinion?

I have a lot of problems with it. The thing is, in my opinion we must

first define the “Russian school” in contrast to the western-European school

of music theory, insofar as I understand that school. Because, practically

speaking, I know more about what went on in the nineteenth and the begin-

ning of the twentieth centuries. The most recent new works from the West I

simply don’t know. But I can say that our Russian music-theory school—on

the whole Moscow and St. Petersburg, since there really are no more, only

those two — is distinguished by our search for the moment of human percep-

tion [момент человеческого восприятия].

Интервью

146

32. And the Moscow school as well?

Yes, Moscow as well. It essentially started there. The first person who

conducted this search was Yavorsky. He was the first to say that a mode [лад]

is gravitation [тяготение]. And what does gravitation mean? There’s no

“weight” in music. So this is an analysis of our perception. The moment of our

psychological, human evaluation [оценка]. That is, we speak of mode as a

manifestation of the human perception of that which sounds.

33. OK, but is this the entire Russian school of music theory?

Yes, the entire Russian school.

34. Well then what exactly is the Moscow school?

The Moscow school came later. And the Petersburg school came with

Asafiev, Tiulin, and Kushnarev.

35. And Bershadskaya!

Bershadskaya is just their successor. They were the founders. These

were people with university degrees, all three. Tiulin finished both the math-

ematical and law faculties. Asafiev finished the history faculty, I think, but I

can’t remember precisely19. But what exactly does a university education

mean? It’s an education that always demanded a logical thought process.

The Moscow school was founded by people who graduated Church-Slavonic

schools, seminaries. That is, Moscow was of a more emotional-sensuous bent,

but with us, we had strict logic. The first thing that Yuri Tiulin demanded of

us in our discussions was that we had no errors in formal logic. That which

19 Asafiev finished the history faculty of St. Petersburg University in 1908.

Интервью

147

the Moscow school doesn’t really demand. The Moscow school is more meta-

phorical.

36. The first name that comes to my mind with the Moscow

school is Igor Sposobin, right?

Yes, if you like, he was among the very first.

37. And also Grigori Catoire, who also promoted Riemann.

This was very important to them.

Here in Russia Rimsky-Korsakov emanated from Riemann. Rimsky’s

textbook is essentially Riemannian20. By the way Tiulin also relied quite a bit

on Riemann. Riemann is at the basis of our school. You see, the entire school

is essentially European insofar as it rests on the study, first and foremost, of

the rules of the major-minor system. And because of the recognition of this

system as a single inviolable system, this sometimes hinders the possibility of

seeing different systems. Why, for example, does the western system differ so

markedly from eastern systems? After all, eastern systems are also systems.

But our western education, at least in part, does not allow for the considera-

tion of other systems. If you recall the Moscow, even the European school of

the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, what did they teach? They taught how

to form the major-minor system. The same as Riemann. They simply didn’t

allow for other schools of thought. If you’ll allow, this began, first and fore-

most, with the Leningrad school. Thanks to Kushnarev, we began to

20 Here Bershadskaya is mistaken. It is entirely likely that Rimsky-Korsakov consulted not a single source from Riemann in writing his textbook in the fall of 1884. Riemann’s Verein-fachte Harmonielehre only appeared in 1893, and Riemann’s earlier works would have been of little interest to Rimsky, if even available. Rimsky was far more influenced by the works of Heinrich Bellermann, Luigi Cherubini, Anatoly Liadov, and Tchaikovsky (see: [36, 309–325], and [39, 208–242].

Интервью

148

acknowledge that there exist other regulated systems outside of major and

minor.

38. Here you’re speaking of his work with Armenian mono-

dy?

Exactly. Everyone knows that monody exists. Abroad and in Moscow,

everyone knows. But somehow monody is not considered to be of equal value

to the major-minor system. And, at the basis of all teachings, the chord is giv-

en as a unit. They search for the chord in systems where it simply doesn’t act

as such. Right up to Shostakovich, even. Take, for instance, Alexander

Dolzhansky, who wrote about Shostakovich’s early works. He immediately

pulls everything in the direction of chords. This is the tendency to see music,

first and foremost, as a succession of chords. hether we judge its content or

whether we judge what we call a “mode,” ultimately we are always looking for

the chord. Not understanding that there is another line, the horizontal. Thus

the presentation into the system of different types of thinking, this is the

hallmark of the Leningrad school. In Moscow they speak of “monodic things”

but they miss the point. For example, Yuri Kholopov. As my teacher Yuri Tiu-

lin said about Yuri Kholopov, “Kholopov has read so much that he can’t even

digest it.” Kholopov’s assertions are a complete mishmash [каша].

39. Are you speaking now of Kholopov’s textbooks on har-

mony?

His harmony textbooks, and his other works. His last work, Music-

Theoretical Systems [see: [32]], is a total mess. Did I give you the little book I

wrote not long ago?

Интервью

149

40. Harmony in Modes?

Yes. In that book I have a rather clear criticism of what Kholopov does

in his books. He lacks logic, and he doesn’t follow the rules of formal logic.

One definition does not follow another. For example, he says that, “a mode is

a pitch-system of music” [лад – это звуковысотная система музыки].

“Harmony” is a pitch system of music, but not “mode.”

41. Were you acquainted with Kholopov?

TB: Of course, he came up to St. Petersburg. He came to visit me here

in my apartment. But the Moscow school is a real mess [кавардак]. Kholopov

introduced a great confusion [сумятица] having excluded the concept of

harmony as a material structure. He confused harmony with mode. This is his

problem. They are different things.

42. Does the Moscow school rely too heavily on German the-

orists, like Riemann, and the German school of theory?

No. There have been no Germans in the Moscow school for quite some

time. No Riemann. If we are talking about the major-minor system, then of

course Riemann, but if about later developments, then no.

43. I know that Asafiev really liked Yavorsky and didn’t like

Riemann.

Well, Asafiev overstated that. Because Riemann conforms to the ma-

jor-minor system. Generally, I have my own conception with respect to the

positions from which we must approach musical systems. I consider a musical

system to be a phenomenon that develops historically. And no system can

pretend to be absolutely universal. That’s the stranglehold [засилье] of the

Интервью

150

major-minor system in the minds and, in part, the practice of European music

and musicians. If we look at European music from, say, the end of the six-

teenth century, then one could say that the major-minor system continues to

be in effect. Because if we were to take film music or popular music, which is

all current and exists as actual intoned music [интонируемая музыка],

then that music is significantly more common than that of Schoenberg or oth-

ers like him, if we speak generally about major-minor music. Is this by

chance? No, it’s not by chance but, rather, it happens because the laws of the

major-minor system, like no others, were placed at the basis of the properties

of the very material of the music. That is, the properties of sound, the acoustic

materials. So they mixed together Riemann’s ideas with ideas of others, etc.

As we were taught, this is the Hegelian triad. his note negates this note as

tonic, and this note reestablishes it. Which is to say thesis, antithesis, and a

new whole [i.e., synthesis]. Take this note for example [Bershadskaya plays a

repeated G#4 on the piano]. It certainly sounds like a tonic after a while. But

if I put it in context [she plays it now as m. 5–6 of Beethoven’s Moonlight So-

nata] it sounds different. These are the rules of the major-minor system,

which even Rameau showed us. And ultimately Riemann built a system on

this, and it’s not going anywhere. But other nearby systems also exist. And

this acknowledgement of other systems, with their own sets of laws, is what is

gained by the logic of our Leningrad school of music theory. And, if you like,

this is a generalization, because I had two teachers, Tiulin and Kushnarev and,

to a certain extent, Asafiev. And, if I can say so, I’ve tried to generalize their

thoughts. I came up with the concept of the “distinct unit of a musical system”

[разная единица системы в музыке]. After all, any system has its own unit.

Suppose I say, “the road from St. Petersburg to Moscow is some 600 kilome-

ters.” I’m not going to say that it’s 600 square kilometers. No. Linear distanc-

Интервью

151

es are so measured, correct? And about the square meterage of a room I’m

not going to speak about simple linear meters, I’m going to speak about

square meters. It’s exactly like that with a musical system. There are distinct

units of motion, of thought. Perhaps it’s a chord, or perhaps a separate note.

It’s important not to confuse these two concepts. One can’t gauge peasant

folksongs with chords. The Ukrainian folksong “Shedrik, Shedrik” [Ber-

shadskaya plays this song on the piano]. Here’s every note, and here’s the

tonic. There are no chords. And it’s wrong to analyze such things with chords.

Just as it’s wrong to analyze using only single notes that which happens in the

music of Beethoven or Wagner. So this is the juxtaposition of distinct units,

which I have not seen in any other theoretical school.

44. Only in St. Petersburg.

Yes, only in St. Petersburg. Of course people speak about chords and

tones. But to contrast them as two distinct systems of thought, you can’t find

that anywhere else. And that’s how it begins. Someone plays Shostakovich

and they find chords where there are none.

45. Now the most difficult question, what’s the definition of

intonatsiia?

Sometimes it’s understood too simplistically. That is, they say that in-

tonatsiia is, say, melody. Melody is intonatsiia. And then that becomes all of

intonatsiia. That is, they essentially equate the concept of “intonatsiia” with

“motive.” But Asafiev spoke of something completely different. And I think

I’ve given a definition that’s closer to the essence of what Asafiev had in mind.

I said that intonatsiia is “the pitch result of the overwhelming demand of the

human being to express its emotional state with the voice” [звуковой

Интервью

152

результат неодолимой потребности человека голосом выразить свое

душевное состояние].

46. Because before Asafiev it was a lot simpler—intonatsiia

came from Yavorsky.

And Yavorsky, perhaps unwittingly, already had that in mind.

47. PE: I’ve worked with a Yavorskian analysis of Chopin. It’s

an intonational analysis. It maps the horizontal position of all

notes in the Chopin prelude. It shows how they are “intoned,” hor-

izontally speaking, do I have that right?

Yes, horizontally.

48. So it’s very similar to voice leading [голосоведение], but

it’s not voice leading.

No it’s not voice leading.

49. Voice leading is more mechanical?

Voice leading can happen between structures that are, internally, not

even connected to each other. For example, if speaking in your terms, here’s

one motive, and here’s another [Bershadskaya plays the first two bars of

Mozart’s A major Piano Sonata, KV 331]. And between them you have voice

leading. But the intonatsiia is divided completely differently. With respect to

intonatsiia, there are two21. And there is also voice leading between them.

That is, to reduce intonatsiia to voice leading is incorrect. Intonatsiia is that

21 It was, and still is, unclear to me how these two intonatsiia differ from the idea of two motives in those first two bars of Mozart KV 331.

Интервью

153

which stands above the absolutely material structure. I’m currently writing an

article on methodology for music school teachers. And there I begin one of the

sections by asking what music is. It’s an art and, as any art, it’s a product of

human spiritual activity, but any art also has its material side. Because the

spiritual that we have in art can only be transferred through the material side.

Beginning with such a phenomenon as our language and speech, because lan-

guage is also spiritual, but it expresses itself in the material word. Painting is

a spiritual art, but it is expressed through material. Paints, drawings. Music,

of course, is a spiritual art, but it expresses itself through material, through

notes. Anything spiritual can be perceived only through material.

50. You said that all music is tonal, correct?

Yes, of course. And I consider tonality to be a category of pitch.

51. Of pitch?

Yes, there must be pitches. Quite recently, this past June, I published a

new article, “The Music of Noises: Is It Music?” And there I tried to prove that,

if the entire composition is made up only of noises, then it’s not music. It

could be some different type of art. By the way, Kholopov offered the term

“Timbral Music” [тембрика]. Timbre has a colossal expressive significance,

but this is not music. Music must definitely have absolute pitches. And in this

I cite classical thinkers, in particular, Herodotus, who wrote that a sound can

be a musical sound only if it can be thoughtfully reproduced by the human

voice. A most wise thought, which Asafiev then took, since he also speaks

about this important vocal moment. And how I characterized intonatsiia to

you earlier. It’s “the pitch result of the overwhelming demand of the human

Интервью

154

being to express its emotional state with the voice.” Do you understand? With

the voice!

52. The voice, that’s the key moment?

Absolutely, the key moment.

53.You said, in one of your interviews, that “one of my most

important theses, which I can consider my own discovery, is the

introduction of the transmitter [носитель] and informant

[информатор] of modal function [ладовая функция].

And that’s the unit of motion [единица движения]. That’s it, the in-

formant. What does informant mean? In a monodic system, one note is suffi-

cient. The note “informs” us. There is a note, it is the informant, it is the tonic.

Or it is not the tonic. And in the harmonic system the informant—an entire

complex — is the chord. That’s what I mean when I speak of a “unit of motion.”

54. When we met last November you said that your favorite

composers were Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, do I remember that

correctly?

Indeed.

55. Do you have other favorite composers, perhaps more re-

cent, say of the twentieth century?

Well, I grew up on tonal music. Because tonality exists in any music.

Tonicality [тоникальность] — this is not tonality — refers to music with the

sense of a clear tonic. So I grew up on that type of music. I can name twenti-

eth-century composers whom I listen to with pleasure. Shostakovich, Schnitt-

Интервью

155

ke. They both have a sense of a gravitation toward the tonic. Music that is

openly simply dissonant and not tonic-oriented, I can listen to it, but I don’t

really like it. I would never put it on and listen to it myself. Shostakovich and

Schnittke I’d happily play. But ultimately my heart is there where Tiulin’s

heart was. He also preferred tonal major-minor music. I also like folk music.

I studied folklore for many years. This is when I studied with Kushnarev and

wrote a dissertation on multi-voiced Russian folk-peasant songs. I was likely

the first to suggest that Russian folk songs are not monolithic, but that they

have different areas and fields, which can in fact be completely different. The

music of our northern peoples, for instance, vastly differs from music of the

Donskoi region, and so on. It’s generally considered that mine was the first

work to suggest that. And in this I was able to work with music that was not

from the major-minor system.

56. It opened up a different world for you?

Yes, a different world. But more important, being a student of Kush-

narev and Tiulin, I could unite and deduce those generalities that the juxtapo-

sition of different systems allowed for. So I didn’t consider monody to be

some kind of impoverished system.

57. Tatiana Sergeevna, thank you so much for talking with

me today.

You’re most welcome.

Интервью

156

ЛИТЕРАТУРА

1. Арановский М.Г. Теоретическая концепция Б.Л. Яворского

[Электронный ресурс] // Искусство музыки: теория и история. 2012. № 6.

С. 41–60. URl: http://imti.sias.ru/upload/iblock/a64/aranovskii.pdf.

2. Асафьев Б.В. Музыкальная форма как процесс. 2-е изд. В 2 ч.

Ч. 2. Л.: Музыка, 1971.

3. Бершадская Т.С. В ладах с гармонией, в гармонии с ладами:

очерки. СПб.: Издательство Санкт-Петербургской консерватории, 2011.

4. Бершадская Т.С. Гармония как элемент музыкальной систе-

мы. СПб.: Ut, 1997.

5. Бершадская Т.С. Курс анализа музыкальных произведений:

Программа для музыкальных училищ. Л.: Музыка, 1951.

6. Бершадская Т.С. Лекции по гармонии. СПб.: Композитор,

2003.

7. Бершадская Т.С. Ленинградская–петербургская школа тео-

рии музыки // Санкт-Петербургская консерватория в мировом музы-

кальном пространстве / ред. Н.И. Дегтярева. СПб.: Издательство поли-

технического института, 2013. С. 9–15.

8. Бершадская Т.С. Нетрадиционные формы письменных работ

по гармонии в консерваториях. 2-е изд. СПб.: Композитор, 2001.

9. Бершадская Т.С. Основные композиционные закономерности

многоголосия русской народной крестьянской песни. Л.: Музгиз, 1961.

10. Бершадская Т.С. Статьи разных лет. СПб.: Союз художников,

2004.

11. Бершадская Т.С. Функции гармонии в музыкальной системе.

Л.: ЛОЛГК, 1989.

Интервью

157

12. Бершадская Т.С., Масленкова Л.М., Незванов Б.А. и др. Курс

теории музыки. Л.: Музыка, 1988.

13. Дмитрий Шостакович: в письмах и документах / ред.-сост.

И.А. Бобыкина. М.: Государственный центральный музей музыкальной

культуры им. М.И. Глинки, Рекламно-издательская фирма «Антиква»,

2000.

14. Дубовский И.И., Евсеев С.В., Способин И.В., Соколов В.В.

Учебник гармонии: в 2 ч. М.: Государственное издательство «Искусство»,

1939.

15. Катуар Г.Л. Теоретический курс гармонии: в 2 ч. Ч. 1.

М. Госмузиздат, 1924–1925.

16. Конференция по теории ладового ритма // Пролетарский му-

зыкант 1930. № 2. С. 6–9.

17. Кушнарёв Х.С. Вопросы истории и теории армянской моно-

дической музыки. Л.: Госмузиздат, 1958.

18. Кушнарёв Х.С. О полифонии: Сб. Статей. М.: Музыка, 1971.

19. Луначарский А.В. Несколько замечаний о теории ладового

ритма // Пролетарский музыкант. 1930. № 2. С. 10–13.

20. Протопопов С.В. Элементы строения музыкальной речи: в 2

т. Т.1 / под ред. Б. Яворского. М.: Гос. Изд-во. Муз. сектор, 1930.

21. Римский-Корсаков Н.А. Полное собрание сочинений: Литера-

турные произведения и переписка. Т. 4. Учебник гармонии. М.: Музгиз,

1960.

22. Римский-Корсаков Н.А. Учебник гармонии [Литогр. Изд].

СПб., 1885.

23. Рыжкин И.Я. Новое издание учебника гармонии // Советская

музыка. 1950. № 2.

Интервью

158

24. Тюлин Ю.Н. Искусство контрапункта. М.: Музыка, 1968.

25. Тюлин Ю.Н. Натуральные и альтерационные лады. М.: Му-

зыка, 1971.

26. Тюлин Ю.Н. Строение музыкальной речи. Л.: Музгиз, 1969.

27. Тюлин Ю.Н. Учение о гармонии. 3-е изд. М.: Музыка, 1966.

28. Тюлин Ю.Н., Привано Н.Г. Теоретические основы гармонии.

Л.: Музгиз, 1965.

29. Тюлин Ю.Н., Привано Н.Г. Учебник гармонии: в 2 ч. М.: Муз-

гиз, 1964.

30. Холопов Ю.Н. Гармония: практический курс: в 2 ч. М.: Ком-

позитор, 2003.

31. Холопов Ю.Н. Гармония: теоретический курс. М.: Лань, 2003.

32. Холопов Ю.Н., Кириллина Л.В., Кюрегян Т.С., Лыжов Г.И.,

Поспелова Р.Л., Ценова В.С. Музыкально-теоретические системы. М.:

Композитор, 2006.

33. Яворский Б.Л. Избранное: письма, воспоминания. М.: Компо-

зитор, 2008.

34. Яворский Б.Л. Статьи, воспоминания, переписка / ред.

И. Рабинович и Д. Шостакович. М.: Советский композитор, 1972.

35. Яворский Б.Л. Строение музыкальной речи. Материалы и за-

метки. М, 1908.

36. Carpenter E. The Theory of Music in Russia and the Soviet Union,

ca. 1650–1950. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1988.

37. Ewell P. Conference Report: Inaugural Meeting of the Russian So-

ciety for Music Theory (OTM) [Electronic resource] // Music Theory Online.

2013. № 19 (4). URL: https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.13.19.4/

mto.13.19.4.ewell.html.

Интервью

159

38. Ewell P. Rethinking Octatonicism: Views from Stravinsky’s

Homeland [Electronic resource] // Music Theory Online. 2012. № 18 (4).

URL: https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.12.18.4/mto.12.18.4.ewell.html.

39. Jackson L. Modulation and Tonal Space in the Practical Manual

Of Harmony: Rimsky-Korsakov’s Harmonic Theory and Its Historical Ante-

cedents. PhD diss., Columbia University, 1996.

40. Lupishko M. Konyus’ ‘Metrotechtonism’ and Yavorsky’s ‘Modal

Rhythm’: Parallels Between Music and Architecture in Early Soviet Music

Theory // Music and Figurative Arts in the Twentieth Century / ed. by

R. Illiano. Turnhout: Brepols, 2016. P. 73–94

41. McQuere G. The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky // Russian Theo-

retical Thought in Music / ed. by G. McQuere. Ann Arbor: UMI Research

Press. Repr. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, (1983) 2009. P. 109–

164.

42. Sabaneev L. Modern Russian Composers / trans. by J.A. Joffe.

New York: International Publishers, 1927.

43. Tull J. B.V. Asafiev’s “Music Form as a Process”: Translation and

Commentary. PhD diss. Ohio State University, 1977.

REFERENCES

1. Aranovsky M.G. Teoreticheskaya koncepciya B.L. YAvorskogo

[The theoretical conception of Boleslav Yavorsky] [Electronic resource] // Is-

kusstvo muzyki: teoriya i istoriya [The art of music: Theory and history]. 2012.

№ 6. P. 41–60. URl: http://imti.sias.ru/upload/iblock/a64/ aranovskii.pdf.

Интервью

160

2. Asafiev B.V. Muzykal'naya forma kak process [Musical form as

process]. Second edition. 2 vols. Vol. 2. В 2 ч. Ч. 2. Leningrad: Muzyka [Mu-

sic], 1971.

3. Bershadskaya Т.S. V ladah s garmoniej, v garmonii s ladami:

ocherki [In modes with harmony, in harmony with modes: Essays]. St. Pe-

tersburg: St. Petersburg Conservatory, 2011.

4. Bershadskaya Т.S. Garmoniya kak element muzykal'noj sistemy

[Harmony as an element of a musical system]. St. Petersburg: UT, 1997.

5. Bershadskaya Т.S. Kurs analiza muzykal'nyh proizvedenij: Pro-

gramma dlya muzykal'nyh uchilishch [Course in the analysis of musical com-

positions: A program for specialized music schools]. Leningrad: Muzyka [Mu-

sic], 1951.

6. Bershadskaya Т.S. Lekcii po garmonii [Lectures in harmony]. St.

Petersburg: Kompozitor [Composer], 2003.

7. Bershadskaya Т.S. Leningradskaya–peterburgskaya shkola teorii

muzyki [The Leningrad-St. Petersburg school of music theory] // Sankt-

Peterburgskaya konservatoriya v mirovom muzykal'nom prostranstve [St. Pe-

tersburg conservatory in a world-wide musical context] / ed. by

N.I. Degtiareva. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Politekhnicheskogo Instituta,

2013. P. 9–15.

8. Bershadskaya Т.S. Netradicionnye formy pis'mennyh rabot po

garmonii v konservatoriyah [Non-traditional forms of written harmony work

in conservatories]. Second edition. St. Petersburg: Kompozitor [Composer],

2001.

9. Bershadskaya Т.S. Osnovnye kompozicionnye zakonomernosti

mnogogolosiya russkoj narodnoj krest'yanskoj pesni [Fundamental composi-

Интервью

161

tional rules in multi-voiced Russian folk-peasant songs]. Leningrad: Muzgiz

[Music Publisher], 1961.

10. Bershadskaya Т.S. Stat'i raznyh let [Articles from various years].

St. Petersburg: Soiuz Khudozhnikov [Union of Artist], 2004.

11. Bershadskaya Т.S. Funkcii garmonii v muzykal'noj sisteme

[Functional harmony in a musical system]. Leningrad: LOLGK [Leningrad

Order of Lenin State Conservatory], 1989.

12. Bershadskaya Т.S. Maslenkova L.M., Nezvanov B.A. et al. Kurs

teorii muzyki [Course in music theory]. Leningrad: Muzyka, 1988.

13. Dmitrij SHostakovich: v pis'mah i dokumentah [Dmitri Shostako-

vich: In letter and documents] / ed. by I.A. Bobykina. Moscow: М.: Gosudar-

stvennyj central'nyj muzej muzykal'noj kul'tury im. M.I. Glinki [State Central

Museum of Musical Culture named after M.I. Glinka], Reklamno-

izdatel'skaya firma «Antikva» [Advertising and publishing company “An-

tikva”], 2000.

14. Dubovsky J.I., Evseev S.V., Methodin I.V., Sokolov V.V. Uchebnik

garmonii [Harmony textbook]: 2 vols. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo

“Iskusstvo” [State Publishing House “Art”], 1939.

15. Catoire G.L. Teoreticheskij kurs garmonii [Theoretical course of

harmony]. 2 Vols. Vol. 1. Moscow: Gosmuzizdat [State Publishing House Mu-

sic Sector], 1924–1925.

16. Konferenciya po teorii ladovogo ritma [Conference on the theory

of modal rhythm] // Proletarskij muzykant [Proletarian musician]. 1930. № 2.

P. 6–9.

17. Kushnarev Ch.S. Voprosy istorii i teorii armyanskoj mo-

nodicheskoj muzyki [Questions on the history and theory of Armenian mo-

Интервью

162

nodic music]. Leningrad: Gosmuzizdat [State Publishing House Music Sector],

1958.

18. Kushnarev Ch.S. O polifonii: Sb. Statej [On polyphony, collected

articles]. Moscow: Muzyka [Music], 1971.

19. Lunacharsky A.V. Neskol'ko zamechanij o teorii ladovogo ritma

[Several observations on the theory of modal rhythm] // Proletarskij

muzykant [Proletarian musician]. 1930. № 2. P. 10–13.

20. Protopopov S.V. Elementy stroeniya muzykal'noj rechi. 2 vols.

Vol.1 / ed. by B. Yavorsky. Moscow: Gosmuzizdat [State Publishing House

Music Sector], 1930.

21. Rimsky-Korsakov N.A. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij: Literaturnye

proizvedeniya i perepiska [Complete collected works: Literary works and cor-

respondence]. Vol. 4. Uchebnik garmonii [Harmony textbook]. Moscow:

Muzgiz [State Publishing House Music Sector], 1960.

22. Rimsky-Korsakov N.A. Uchebnik garmonii [Harmony textbook].

Lithograph printing. St. Petersburg, 1885.

23. Ryzhkin J.Ja. Novoe izdanie uchebnika garmonii [New edition of

the harmony textbook] // Sovetskaya muzyka [Soviet music]. 1950. № 2.

24. Tiulin Yu.N. Iskusstvo kontrapunkta [The art of counterpoint].

Moscow: Muzyka [Music], 1968.

25. Tiulin Yu.N. Natural'nye i al'teracionnye lady [Natural and alter-

nating modes]. Moscow: Muzyka [Music], 1971.

26. Tiulin Yu.N. Stroenie muzykal'noj rechi [The structure of musical

speech]. Leningrad: Muzgiz [State Publishing House Music Sector], 1969.

27. Tiulin Yu.N. Uchenie o garmonii [Studies in harmony]. Third edi-

tion. Moscow: Muzyka [Music], 1966.

Интервью

163

28. Tiulin Yu.N., Privano N.G. Teoreticheskie osnovy garmonii [ The

theoretical bases of harmony]. Leningrad: Muzgiz [State Publishing House

Music Sector], 1965.

29. Tiulin Yu.N., Privano N.G. Uchebnik garmonii [Harmony text-

book]. 2 vols. Moscow: Muzgiz [State Publishing House Music Sector], 1964.

30. Kholopov Yu.N. Garmoniya: prakticheskij kurs [(Harmony: A

practical course]. 2 vols. Moscow: Kompozitor [Composer], 2003.

31. Kholopov Yu.N. Garmoniya: teoreticheskij kurs [Harmony: a the-

oretical course]. Moscow: Lan’ [Doe], 2003.

32. Kholopov Yu.N., Kirillina L.V., Kyuregyan T.S., Lyzhov G.I.,

Pospelova R.L., Tsenova V.S. Muzykal'no-teoreticheskie sistemy [Music-

theoretical systems]. Moscow: Kompozitor [Composer], 2006.

33. Yavorsky B.L. Izbrannoe: pis'ma, vospominaniya [Favorites: Let-

ters, recollections]. Moscow: Kompozitor [Composer], 2008.

34. Yavorsky B.L. Stat'i, vospominaniya, perepiska [Articles, remem-

brances, correspondence] / ed. by I. Rabinovich and D. Shostakovich. Mos-

cow: Sovetskiĭ Kompozitor [Soviet composer], 1972.

35. Yavorsky B.L. Stroenie muzykal'noj rechi. Materialy i zametki

[ The structure of musical speech. Materials and notes]. Moscow, 1908.

36. Carpenter E. The Theory of Music in Russia and the Soviet Union,

ca. 1650–1950. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1988.

37. Ewell P. Conference Report: Inaugural Meeting of the Russian So-

ciety for Music Theory (OTM) [Electronic resource] // Music Theory Online.

2013. № 19 (4). URL: https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.13.19.4/

mto.13.19.4.ewell.html.

Интервью

164

38. Ewell P. Rethinking Octatonicism: Views from Stravinsky’s

Homeland [Electronic resource] // Music Theory Online. 2012. № 18 (4).

URL: https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.12.18.4/mto.12.18.4.ewell.html.

39. Jackson L. Modulation and Tonal Space in the Practical Manual

Of Harmony: Rimsky-Korsakov’s Harmonic Theory and Its Historical Ante-

cedents. PhD diss., Columbia University, 1996.

40. Lupishko M. Konyus’ ‘Metrotechtonism’ and Yavorsky’s ‘Modal

Rhythm’: Parallels Between Music and Architecture in Early Soviet Music

Theory // Music and Figurative Arts in the Twentieth Century / ed. by

R. Illiano. Turnhout: Brepols, 2016. P. 73–94

41. McQuere G. The Theories of Boleslav Yavorsky // Russian Theo-

retical Thought in Music / ed. by G. McQuere. Ann Arbor: UMI Research

Press. Repr. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, (1983) 2009. P. 109–

164.

42. Sabaneev L. Modern Russian Composers / trans. by J.A. Joffe.

New York: International Publishers, 1927.

43. Tull J. B.V. Asafiev’s “Music Form as a Process”: Translation and

Commentary. PhD diss. Ohio State University, 1977.